🔗 Share this article

This recent season, I found myself navigating in gridlocked traffic on the sweltering streets of Marseille. At an intersection, my companion in the front seat advised a right turn toward a renowned spot for fish soup. Yet, the digital guide on my phone commanded us to continue straight. Fatigued and overheated, I followed the algorithm's advice. Moments later, we were stuck at a roadwork site.

A seemingly trivial incident, maybe. But one that encapsulates a defining question of our era, where technology permeates nearly every facet of existence: who gets our trust more – other people and our personal instincts, or the machine?

The Enlightenment's Promise and A Contemporary Backslide

The influential German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously described the Enlightenment as "humanity's emergence from its self-imposed nonage." This state, he wrote, "represents the incapacity to use one's personal reason without guidance from an external source." For ages, that guiding "other" for human thought was frequently the priest, the monarch, or the landowner – figures claiming to speak for divine will. To explain phenomena like volcanic eruptions, people sought answers in religion. In organizing the social world, from economics to matters of the heart, faith served as the main compass.

“Sapere aude!” or “Dare to use your own understanding!”

Kant maintained that humans had the capacity for reason. They just didn't have the boldness to use it. With upheavals in America and France, a new dawn arrived: logic would supplant superstition, and the intellect, liberated from dogma, would become the driver of advancement and a better world.

Now, 250 years later, one might question if we are quietly regressing into a form of intellectual immaturity. An app dictating a driving route is just one example. Artificial intelligence threatens to become our new "other" – a unseen guide that influences our choices and behaviors. We are in danger of ceding the hard-won courage to think independently – and this time, not to deities or rulers, but to lines of code.

The Rapid Rise and Subtle Dangers of AI Dependence

ChatGPT was launched a mere three years ago, and already a global survey indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents had used AI in the previous six months. Whether deciding on a breakup or choosing a candidate, individuals are increasingly turning to algorithms for guidance. Research suggests a significant portion of user prompts concern non-work topics. Even more intriguing than our use of AI for advice is what happens when we let it speak for us. Composition is now one of the most common uses for generative AI, second only to everyday tasks. The late American author Joan Didion once remarked, “I write purely to discover what I am thinking.” What occurs when we cease writing? Do we cease discovering?

Alarmingly, emerging research hints the outcome may be yes. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology used electroencephalography to track the mental engagement of essay writers who had could use AI, Google, or nothing. Those who could rely on AI showed the least brain activity and had trouble accurately recalling their own work. Perhaps most troubling was that over time, individuals in the AI group grew increasingly reliant, pasting entire blocks of text.

“Inertia and fear,” Kant wrote, “are the reasons why so great a proportion of men … stay in perpetual nonage.”

Certainly, AI's appeal stems from its efficiency. It saves time, minimizes work and – critically – offers a novel way to abdicate accountability. In his 1941 book, Escape from Freedom, the German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm proposed that the appeal of authoritarianism could be understood by a preference to give up personal freedom in exchange for the reassuring certainty of obedience. AI presents a digital avenue for relinquishing the weight of having to think and choose.

The Black Box Problem: Trust Without Understanding

AI's primary draw is its capacity to perform tasks beyond human capability – analyzing vast datasets at unprecedented speed. Stuck in the car in Marseille, this was, ultimately, why I opted to believe the app over my friend (a choice she took as an insult). With access to all the data, surely the app had superior insight – or so I believed.

The core issue is that AI is a black box. It produces knowledge, but not always fostering human understanding. We cannot fully grasp how AI reaches its decisions – even its creators admit this. Nor can we verify its reasoning against transparent standards. So when we follow AI's advice, we are not being led by logic. We are returning to the domain of faith. In dubio pro machina: when in doubt, side with the machine – that could be our 21st-century guiding principle.

Harnessing Without Eroding: The Essential Challenge

AI can be a powerful tool for humanity in scientific pursuit. It can help medical research, liberate us from tedious tasks, or manage taxes – duties that demand little thought and are unfulfilling. This is beneficial. But Kant and his peers did not advocate for reason over faith just so humans could assemble better furniture or have extra free time. Independent thought was not just about productivity – it was a discipline of liberty and human self-determination.

Human thought is often chaotic and fallible, but it compels us to debate, to question, to challenge concepts – and to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge. It builds confidence, both individually and as a society. For Kant, the exercise of reason was never only about acquiring knowledge; it was about empowering people to become agents of their own lives, and to oppose domination. It was about creating a moral community based on the shared principle of rational discourse, rather than unquestioning acceptance.

With all the advantages AI brings, the key question remains: how can we harness its promise of advanced capability without undermining human rationality, the bedrock of the Enlightenment and of liberal democracy themselves? That is likely one of the defining questions of our time. It is a question we would do well not to delegate to the machine.